Yes, but does that constitute bad writing and why? I can say that there are many cases where using the same voice across multiple characters could be an excellent writing tool. What makes it objectively bad inWorld War Z?
Really? This is the point you want to nit?
The author clearly is attempting to convey the vastly different experiences of numerous characters from all walks of life all over the world responding to the threat. He even goes out of his way to give them different terminology and simplistic affectations. Despite this, the actual diction remains constant throughout the novel, even though ostensibly all of these accounts are dictation.
The use of a monotonous diction for multiple characters could serve a purpose if, say, the author was attempting to highlight how similar or parallel their experiences were. But even then, you would need, in a novel, an exception to that rule to so highlight it. In the context of this work, it serves no such purpose, and is clearly was unintentional. He seems to have really been going for a series of highly unique stories from different first-person perspectives, but they all read the same.
Well, you made a claim and then provided no support. I can't let an opinion stand unsupported.
The author clearly is attempting to convey the vastly different experiences of numerous characters from all walks of life all over the world responding to the threat. He even goes out of his way to give them different terminology and simplistic affectations. Despite this, the actual diction remains constant throughout the novel, even though ostensibly all of these accounts are dictation.
The use of a monotonous diction for multiple characters could serve a purpose if, say, the author was attempting to highlight how similar or parallel their experiences were. But even then, you would need, in a novel, an exception to that rule to so highlight it. In the context of this work, it serves no such purpose, and is clearly was unintentional. He seems to have really been going for a series of highly unique stories from different first-person perspectives, but they all read the same.
That's more what I'm talking about. Before, you made short unsupported opinion-laden statements. This is better. Had I actually read the novel, I would be able to - potentially - pick apart specific claims with specific counter-examples. I haven't read it, nor do I care to, so I'll just accept your more thorough argument until someone can provide a convincing counter-argument.
pe·dan·tic /pəˈdæntɪk/ [puh-dan-tik] –adjective 1. ostentatious in one's learning. 2. overly concerned with minute details or formalisms, esp. in teaching.
Just one bit of comment here. If the records by different characters were written by that character one would expect different voices. HOWEVER if the guy making the documentary is transcribing what is being said by the characters then it might make more sense to be in one voice (having not read the book I can only assume that like the audio-book they are supposed to be recordings and in the voice of that particular character who is speaking at the moment)
pe·dan·tic /pəˈdæntɪk/ [puh-dan-tik] –adjective 1. ostentatious in one's learning. 2.overly concerned with minute details or formalisms, esp. in teaching.
I am tired of this being posted. It is the author's way of admitting to intellectual laziness.
All I'm saying is that people need to stay on topic more in their arguments. If you're discussing whether a movie was good or bad, your points should be about the movie itself. If you find yourself retreating and bringing up points about the nature of knowledge or fundamental logic and philosophy, that tells me you ran out of meaningful things to say, and you might as well just admit you are wrong rather than drag it out forever.
All I'm saying is that people need to stay on topic more in their arguments. If you're discussing whether a movie was good or bad, your points should be about the movie itself. If you find yourself retreating and bringing up points about the nature of knowledge or fundamental logic and philosophy, that tells me you ran out of meaningful things to say, and you might as well just admit you are wrong rather than drag it out forever.
I am tired of this being posted. It is the author's way of admitting to intellectual laziness.
I wasn't even a party in the argument. Doesn't intellectual due diligence involve knowing what you're talking about? I was just pointing out that this entire stupid drawn-out fight was instigated by a guy who wasn't even interested in reading the book that started it.
overly concerned with minute details or formalisms
See, I disagree with "overly." Everyone is insufficiently concerned with minute details.
Here's an example from my job. One day, I was processing cold smoked fish samples from Establishment A in New York City. Establishment A was importing this smoked fish from Russia, and we sampled from it as part of our Imported Sample Initiative. I received 15 of these samples to test for the presumptive presence of Listeria monocytogenes.
This story also provides an example of monotonous work which cannot be machine replicated.
So I'm handling these fish, breaking them open and scraping out meat bits, and it takes like 2 hours to process all of them. One of these samples felt a bit...funny. There's no other way to describe it. Fish flesh should be firm but yielding; however, this particular sample had flesh whose consistency was slightly too soft for my liking. It was a touch softer than firm Jell-O. Most people thought I was being a little crazy.
Now, when fish are smoked, they are eviscerated prior to processing. Usually, that involves a slit behind the gills and down the belly. You don't really have to go all the way down the belly to pull out the guts; roughly 2/3 down should give you access to the full cavity.
Well, this one sample was not slit down the belly fully, and given that it felt...funny...I decided to explore a little bit and continue the slit. Lo and behold, the fish had not been completely eviscerated. Some unidentified organ tissue remained. Curious, I examined the fish microscopically and discovered spores in the flesh near the uneviscerated portion.
The lack of evisceration is a Class I recall, because uneviscerated fish carry an elevated risk of being contaminated with C. botulinum spores. Guess what those spores were?
Thus, my pedantic self discovered a potentially massive public health issue which was dealt with swiftly. This actually happens with alarming frequency, and it would never be noticed without a pain-in-the-ass level of attention to detail.
In this case, my only defense is that I'm saving a detailed review for the upcoming book club show. ^_~
I was just pointing out thatthis entire stupid drawn-out fight was instigated by a guy who wasn't even interested in reading the book that started it.
The argument had nothing to do with the book specifically. It was another iteration, as Churba said, of the Scrym "we're right and everyone else is objectively wrong" stuff that gets slung around these boards. I don't take kindly to people claiming objectivity from an unsupported platform.
An opinion on a book you haven't even read is not a public health threat.
I questioned Rym's claim of it being "objectively poorly written" because he did not have sufficient basis to say anything objectively. This is a trend with Scrym, one that bothers me, and so I called him out on it.
The larger trend of making statements which are allegedly objective, but which actually lack sufficient basis for the claims that are being made, is one which disturbs me to my core, and it is the thing against which I rage the most.
You guys crack me up. Scientific measures to ensure objectivity in pointing out bad points in a book review? Ha!
Remember that scene in Dead Poets Society where Robin Williams asks all his students to rip out the first chapter of their text book? Yeah, watch that scene again. That is what art is all about, and the appreciation of it.
In art, it is very difficult to criticize something objectively. However, you can say that you didn't enjoy something for a certain reason. Rym does not enjoy this book, and I can understand his reasons why very well. To Rym, this is a "bad" book. To many literary professionals this would also be a "bad book," because it bucks some of the criteria for good prose. However, some people on the internet like this book a lot because it is fun for them. The only way we can understand good/bad in art is through our own opinionated interpretation of it.
I am a big fan of Neal Stephenson's books, and I have recently started reading Thomas Pynchon, specifically V, Gravity's Rainbow and Mason & Dixon. I have been finding strange parallels between the writing styles of the two authors, as well as the subject matter they are interested in. They both explore scientific or historical subjects with a strange hybrid of mystery and adventure writing. They both also have supporting characters that recur from book to book and across impossible spans of history and improbable expanses of geography. Pynchon came before Stephenson, so its not out of the question that Stephenson could have read Pynchon's work or even be a big fan. Has anyone else noticed this?
I am a big fan of Neal Stephenson's books, and I have recently started reading Thomas Pynchon, specifically V, Gravity's Rainbow and Mason & Dixon. I have been finding strange parallels between the writing styles of the two authors, as well as the subject matter they are interested in. They both explore scientific or historical subjects with a strange hybrid of mystery and adventure writing. They both also have supporting characters that recur from book to book and across impossible spans of history and improbable expanses of geography. Pynchon came before Stephenson, so its not out of the question that Stephenson could have read Pynchon's work or even be a big fan. Has anyone else noticed this?
Oh yeah. I could see there being some influence. I wouldn't call it a major influence, though. They have very distinct styles and, I think, worldviews.
Also, you have my congratulations on getting through Mason & Dixon, if you did. I couldn't stick with it. Between the period dialect and the digressive, rambling plot, or lack thereof, really, I just drifted off and quit halfway through.
You should read Vineland, too, though, if you're on a Pynchon kick. I haven't read all his works but it's my favorite of the ones I have read. It really reminded me a lot of Murakami, in some ways, along with a little bit of Hunter S. Thompson.
I agree that they are not carbon copies of each other. Pynchon is serving as methadone for my Stephenson jones.
I'm in the middle of Mason & Dixon right now. I have read Vineland, but it slipped my mind. It definitely was more focused than his other books. I grew up near the area that Vineland takes place in, so it was especially strange reading about the backwater hippy culture that I grew up around (and escaped from!).
I just finished Delivering Happiness by Tony Hisieh, the co-founder and CEO of Zappos.com. He's basically a guy of our generation that became a millionaire just off selling his first website, Link Exchange, and then got with a group of friends to make Zappos, which was recently bought by Amazon to the tune of $940 Million USD.
I'm readingI Hope They Serve Beer in Hell. Tucker Max elevates being an asshole to an art form.
If you like that, pick up his second book. Assholes Finish First isn't as good as the first one in the LOL-inducing department but there were still quite a few stories that I had to put the book down or I would have cracked up and woken up my girlfriend who was asleep beside me (Yeah, I read in bed before zonking out - it helps pummel the mind into submission.)
Right now I'm working my way through The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet's Nest. It picks up right where The Girl Who Played With Fire left off and then resumes the series' plodding pace. I'm in it to finish the story right now, because unless it picks up in the next few chapters I'm not really going to be recommending this series to anyone unless they're looking for something to kill a few weekends and have nothing better to read.
Right now I'm working my way throughThe Girl Who Kicked The Hornet's Nest. It picks up right whereThe Girl Who Played With Fireleft off and then resumes the series' plodding pace. I'm in it to finish the story right now, because unless it picks up in the next few chapters I'm not really going to be recommending this series to anyone unless they're looking for something to kill a few weekends and have nothing better to read.
Those books appear to be stupidly popular. What are they all about?
Comments
The author clearly is attempting to convey the vastly different experiences of numerous characters from all walks of life all over the world responding to the threat. He even goes out of his way to give them different terminology and simplistic affectations. Despite this, the actual diction remains constant throughout the novel, even though ostensibly all of these accounts are dictation.
The use of a monotonous diction for multiple characters could serve a purpose if, say, the author was attempting to highlight how similar or parallel their experiences were. But even then, you would need, in a novel, an exception to that rule to so highlight it. In the context of this work, it serves no such purpose, and is clearly was unintentional. He seems to have really been going for a series of highly unique stories from different first-person perspectives, but they all read the same.
–adjective
1. ostentatious in one's learning.
2. overly concerned with minute details or formalisms, esp. in teaching.
They are written in the direct first person in the book. In fact, the narrator's questions and interjections are in bold interspersed.
Here's an example from my job. One day, I was processing cold smoked fish samples from Establishment A in New York City. Establishment A was importing this smoked fish from Russia, and we sampled from it as part of our Imported Sample Initiative. I received 15 of these samples to test for the presumptive presence of Listeria monocytogenes.
This story also provides an example of monotonous work which cannot be machine replicated.
So I'm handling these fish, breaking them open and scraping out meat bits, and it takes like 2 hours to process all of them. One of these samples felt a bit...funny. There's no other way to describe it. Fish flesh should be firm but yielding; however, this particular sample had flesh whose consistency was slightly too soft for my liking. It was a touch softer than firm Jell-O. Most people thought I was being a little crazy.
Now, when fish are smoked, they are eviscerated prior to processing. Usually, that involves a slit behind the gills and down the belly. You don't really have to go all the way down the belly to pull out the guts; roughly 2/3 down should give you access to the full cavity.
Well, this one sample was not slit down the belly fully, and given that it felt...funny...I decided to explore a little bit and continue the slit. Lo and behold, the fish had not been completely eviscerated. Some unidentified organ tissue remained. Curious, I examined the fish microscopically and discovered spores in the flesh near the uneviscerated portion.
The lack of evisceration is a Class I recall, because uneviscerated fish carry an elevated risk of being contaminated with C. botulinum spores. Guess what those spores were?
Thus, my pedantic self discovered a potentially massive public health issue which was dealt with swiftly. This actually happens with alarming frequency, and it would never be noticed without a pain-in-the-ass level of attention to detail. This explanation is...acceptable.
The larger trend of making statements which are allegedly objective, but which actually lack sufficient basis for the claims that are being made, is one which disturbs me to my core, and it is the thing against which I rage the most.
Remember that scene in Dead Poets Society where Robin Williams asks all his students to rip out the first chapter of their text book? Yeah, watch that scene again. That is what art is all about, and the appreciation of it.
Also, you have my congratulations on getting through Mason & Dixon, if you did. I couldn't stick with it. Between the period dialect and the digressive, rambling plot, or lack thereof, really, I just drifted off and quit halfway through.
You should read Vineland, too, though, if you're on a Pynchon kick. I haven't read all his works but it's my favorite of the ones I have read. It really reminded me a lot of Murakami, in some ways, along with a little bit of Hunter S. Thompson.
I'm in the middle of Mason & Dixon right now. I have read Vineland, but it slipped my mind. It definitely was more focused than his other books. I grew up near the area that Vineland takes place in, so it was especially strange reading about the backwater hippy culture that I grew up around (and escaped from!).
Right now I'm working my way through The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet's Nest. It picks up right where The Girl Who Played With Fire left off and then resumes the series' plodding pace. I'm in it to finish the story right now, because unless it picks up in the next few chapters I'm not really going to be recommending this series to anyone unless they're looking for something to kill a few weekends and have nothing better to read.